Hi Kier
This is what I like about you which is different from all the others of your generation on this site apart from I think Leon is that you notice that the rest of the world and world history has been a mish mash of different philosophies and ideologies from it seems day 1 and especially still in the present day. Even the state school ideologies that often St James is compared against change their philosophy every five to ten years depending on different governments. Cultural studies developed in the 90's. Postmodenism became the vogue in the 80's. We have been living through a very fastly changing political and sociological climate which someone like say Justice seems to not grasp the subtelty of. We live in a very accomodating climate and age in the West that makes the line very thin to whether the S.E.S is indeed a cult. What is a cult? Our age could define it in various degrees. I personally think it is most certainly a cult. Then again I also believe saying the current New Labour government is a cult. I certainly believe the Church is a cult. Yet people seem to let the Church off. What are we all to think? We'll always be influenced by something and Justice it would seem has been watching to many episodes of The Bill. I personally favour the detached teaching of all periods of history and all philosophies and religions from an academic point of view, Surely this is the job of a school to provide information. People naturally develop belief as a matter of personal accident habit or just as a plain phenomenom. To shove a belief down someones throat is very painful and illiberal. However I personally love and study philosophy of all types. I think it's a great subject. I wish it was handled neutrally at St James but there we are. I'll reply more thoroughly to the rest of your post later. Justice for justice took out most of my lunch break and now I'll enjoy a surge in energy levels. I'll get back to Alban too because in his first reply to my posting he made some completely valid points.

Thank you for your interesting posting which tells us something of the methods and standards currently in force at St. James Independent Schools.

Commenting on my complaint that confidential information on parents and their children is being released by St. James staff to unauthorised outsiders you reply:

I am related to someone who is a member of staff in one of the day schools. Now because of your stupidity I have to compromise myself. Now this information was not released but was part of a casual conversation.

What is the difference between divulging confidential information on parents and their children to unauthorised outsiders in casual conversations vs. putting it in writing?

You go on to say:

Your stupid attitude makes a mockery of the campaign for reconcilliation or even accurate revenge.

I have no interest in being reconciled to people who abuse children, nor do I seek revenge. What I do desire is that parents or their children who have suffered should be given the right to speak and and seek legal redress, if that is their wish, without being intimidated by those who attempt to trivialise their complaints.

Unfortunately, you end your post on a somewhat sinister and threatening note:

I advise that you ride more closely in alignment with the others on this site because your screeching 'legal' squawks could just start to piss some people off.

I find your posts confusing. I'm trying to understand whose side you're really on...or are you just sitting on the fence?(not that you need to take one side or the other of course). On one hand you have a relative that works at the schools, who reading in between the lines is giving you info on what current parents are doing and on the other hand you are friends with someone who has withdrawn their child from the school. I find this very interesting.

We live in a very accomodating climate and age in the West that makes the line very thin to whether the S.E.S is indeed a cult. What is a cult?I personally think it is most certainly a cult. Then again I also believe saying the current New Labour government is a cult. I certainly believe the Church is a cult. Yet people seem to let the Church off.

The SES is a cult. It is listed as a cult by the main cult charities. After speaking to an advisor at one of these charities I am told some disturbing facts about people currently in the SES wanting to leave and also the effects the SES has had on past members.Also unlike the SES, the Labour government and Christian Churches are not listed as being cults.

The difference between say the current government and the Church is that people know what they are getting into. They can come and go as they please, there is no pressure to join,there are no hidden agendas. If you send your child to a Church school you know what is expected, you know what the child will learn and you as a parent are informed. At St James, parents were not told about the SES and all that comes with being affiliated and controlled by such a group; therefore how can you compare the cult that is the SES with democracy or the Church.

I advise that you ride more closely in alignment with the others on this site because your screeching 'legal' squawks could just start to piss some people off.

This is a really serious and scary comment to make. Who are these 'people' that you speak of here? By this comment do we assume that the SES have some kind of hit squad lying in wait for all those who dare open their mouths against their precious organisation. This is really disturbing and reminds me somewhat of the intimidation that many parents go through within the closed doors of St James, although I have to say it is not carried out quite as blatantly as this. It is done in a much more subtle and reserved manner, where one knows that it is being done but one can't quite put their finger on it.

Out of approx 800 parents, for 5 to leave is a pitifully non big deal. pitifull. One wonders if any of the parents have read this site or if from the outside this forum seems as sheltered and self referential as the S.E.S is.

I can only speak as a current parent at St James who has spoken to others when I say this, but, you will find that many parents will withdraw their children at the end of the summer term. A few are pulling their children out at the end of this term, some children will not go back at all after this half term.

I have been made aware that at least six parents in one class will be removing their children from St James, some of these children have siblings in other classes. From what I am told and from conversations that have taken place over the last few weeks, I am sure that all classes will be affected to some degree. You will find that the current number of 5 will increase over the next few months as more and more parents say no to the education and indoctrination on offer.

Please Justice! try not to be intimidating yourself. There is no law in this country that I am aware of that prohibits people chattering in a playground. Both Zathura and mm could be more or less accurate. I suspect that the number of children withdrawn from St James will be more than Zathura is currently aware of simply because these things take time to play through. But don't get your hopes up. St James has good inspectorate reports and a long waiting list

anti_ses wrote: Tom, Alban, a different guest and Matthew, four of the most prolific posters on this site, joined this BB in February or March 2004. Two years on and almost 50% of the posts on the SES board have been written by just a dozen contributors. .

But all my posts are v.v. short. Say 25 words average x 350 posts = 17500 words in 2 years.
Compare with Zathra - 7 posts and almost 5000 words in less than a week!

Surely if just one parent removes a child from the school, or one prospective parent is persuaded not to allow their child to attend; and therefore one child is spared potential abuse, it's worth it.

And can I make a plea to all people posting here - please try and keep your posts as short as you can. Zathura, you have made the same points several times over, and it makes it less likely that your comments will be read properly by anyone.

(I'm afraid this very very long indeed. Don't read it. Don't read it. I Don't plan to write much else. I don't see why a post should nessessarilly be short though. Short is superficial. (perhaps) If you don't want to read. Don't. I don't mind. why one person should dictate length I don't know. This is not a new thread (unlike Justice's many threads. That said nothing against ET (great film) Nice person (on site))

Hi there,

I went to St James nursery, primary, secondary schools and also was a part of a foundation group and letter a middle school group in England. I have very good friends who mainly have been in the past members of various international Philosophy Schools in New York, South Africa and Australia. I've just come back from visiting my good friend in New York who's been asked to leave the Philosophy School out there after 10 years of membership because she's had a sex change. It was all very polite and friendly the leaving process but she feels very alone and it is a good example of the kind of heartlessness and non human understanding the school has on occasion. Sometimes the suppression and right wing supposed strength and principledness just manifests itself as just plain moral superiority and at moments like this it is ironic that the leadership of the schools shows itself to be completely out of touch either with public opinion or with any kind of human or human being or humanity orientated thing at all. The S.E.S turns certain members into kind of machines instead of human beings. This is true to an extent.

My hobby is writing and I probably unfortunately for everyone else love to write. Nobody ever gets to see my writing but after a year of watching this website out of a motive of just feeling sorry for the teachers and schools in general I have released my authorship onto this site. I don't want to in any make people put up with my writings unless they want to so I won't be planting any posts of my own. There is actually a small book I am writing called Shankaracharya Antidote which I've been working on for a year in my spare time that analyses how it came to be that St James and the S.E.S hijacked the very subject of philosophy and wittled down at least 50 important thinkers in the known history of Western thought down to five or less I think. I don't understand how St James presumes to introduce parents to meditation and philosophy. They call their philosophy, 'philosophy' as though it is the only one. It just strikes me as absurd. I presume parents ARE NOT listening and just send their kids there not out of idealism but because it is a cheap affordable and accessible private school. S.E.S members seem also especially in the international circuit to also call adwaita on it's own 'philosophy' or themselves philosophers. This is just so sheltered and COMPLETELY out of touch with anybody elses thought on a Global scale that it is funny.

I would not give my kids a St James education. No way. What are you crazy! That said I don't think it was as bad as Justice! and a few others make out. There was the sexism. The militarist ethos. No modern music. No modern world. A denial of 20th century culture. There is still is ! Completely. Where are the rock rehearsal rooms. The jazz lessons etc in music. Romantic classical. Where is a decent attitude to women as friends. None! They are goddesses. It is pathetically babyish. Where is the multifaith understanding? No faiths understand each other. In my opinion it is because they are all opinions and beliefs. It is doubly confusing if you teach them all as real. Better to teach them amongst other idealisms such as Communism or Atheism as history. As information. Let belief form naturally. everyone has beliefs. It is only the platonic ideal of the Guardians that inspires this moulding. They are incredibly nosey and fiddle around with kids. to be honest I actually thing the St James education as it was given to me at least was bullshit. How can you be multi faith and teach predominantly hindusm/adwaita. But my grudge is small and includes no legal challenges. I liked most of my teachers and many of them where very kind to me. Very kind indeed. I don't know why the schools overstress this. Emotionally I think St James should stop fantisizing it is an oasis of peace and love. What other school claims itself to be this? Just be a normal place a normal school with highs and lows. This peace and love thing seems completely absurd when put alongside the stories on this site. An informative school a non biased school would be ideal. I feel parents don't have the right to instill their beliefs in children but the law will certainly not back me up on this.

Well this is how I feel ...yet? I just have a more human tendency it would seem than the tip of the iceberg of those with a grudge. Justice is this tip. I didn't think anyone else was being unfair until Justice came along.

Dear Justice,
It is fair enough that someone who is coming with your apparent strength and official sounding blurb that you are challenged. You are by far the most serious sounding poster this site has seen. Unfortunately for emmylou it is my day off. I'm sure however it is rather difficult to knock
someone with Jutice's conviction. Only time will tell whether the faceless state police will form a more human countenance. Justice doesn't care about all this cult stuff. In my opinion it is just posturing. The do gooding like the help given to Bonsai is not genuine in my view. It is all a revenge act carefully disguised in apparent care for those with problems. i find the attitude displayed insulting, insincere and politically motivated.

Of course I'm close to the S.E.S. I was born into it. Were you not? Are you anything to do with the people on this site. The fact that a parent or parents withdrew is not confidential information. Seeing as I was told first the same story by one of the parents that left that knew the other parents. Perhaps you should sue the parent for confidentiality leaking. Almost everyone on this site has parents who were or are in the S.E.S. Your argument is a non starter because there is nothing to admit and everything to acknowledge. I won't go into my precise religious or philosophical views quite yet but it is rather obvious that the only point I wish to make seems to have been acknowledged by you. There are and were only five withdrawing parents.

Now as a former pupil it is conceivable is it not that persons within one family might have arguments infact very vehement and flaming arguments at some times concerning this inquiry both from different sides of the fence where facts of all kinds are bandied one way and the other. If I have taken part in a great criminality I am very scared indeed. I every now and then argue quite strongly with a member of my family. At one of these times he/she divulged this information to me in defense of his/her job and indeed in defense of his/her convictions that he/she thought that the inquiry was dealing with something from the past not something so relevant to now. This was how I was able to cement the information I had from the parent that a handful of persons who knew each other (I think) had withdrawn. My relative also divulged this information but to defend herself/himself and his/her feelings for his/her whole life's work. She/he is attached to her/his job as many of them are and many of them have been very nice people for most of their lives. I was bigging up the case for the inquiry and she/he quite accidentally and unwittingly told me these statistical facts. And I like to keep my ear in. you should appreciate a closer than average contact like my own. that way you can get to the truth and what the schools are saying and doing inside rather than on the shop front. But the fact is in my case infact I'm not so against them.(the school) I'm a moderate.

What I couldn't stand though was your self righteousness and the fact that for the first time ever I knew for a fact a blatant lie was being spawned by us ex pupils. I assume you are one of them? Now I'm moderately 'against'. What I think your attitude and this one lie is doing is compromising the real case. This must be obvious. If you start spinning and exaggerating and painting such a completely dark work then it is unlikely the authorities that you speak of so frequently and the justice system which itself is often working from dubious principles anyway will take you as seriously than if your case is completely valid and the truth. The truth has a ring to it. These things for the most part come out in court because not all witnesses are like Justice! The average becomes the truth. I think the mistreatment was quite a lot more than St James or even the report admits but nowhere near that of some of the claimants. For instance 'systematic abuse' (Alban) implies a reality that I never saw. Nowhere near it.

It in my opinion there is a lot of truth in these claims and some distortions and some made up stuff. Your post was the first time in two years I noticed something that was such an effing lie. This caused my interception. I too want justice but I don't want it wrecked by someone whose exaggerations could actually weaken the case rather than strengthen it and when I have moments of sympathy for the schools I feel particularly strongly that liars like you are seen for what they are. I think there are some serious effing problems in St James and would like to see them ironed out with a hand stronger than any even you could dish out. You are not taking me seriously.

However look at all the posts concerning the schools latest statement. the deconstruction that various members put forward is real and it's true. A group of people seeking the truth (and that is truth about what went on and more to the point what is going on in St James not the S.E.S meaning of the 'truth')can't afford to have a bullshitter in their midst in my opinion however valiant he or she thinks he or she is. Still with persons planning in half a year to remove their children the tone of Justice's piece did not imply this. He or she implied a mass exodus now. I think I am perfectly in my rights to hold the opinion that this one post was an illusion that Justice was trying to create. This does not sit well with either the ideas of truth or reconcilliation or the law.

I think out of all the people currently posting you are the barmy militant. This is just my view that you are so worried that I'm close to the S.E.S shows how deep is the scale of your own paranoid vision of life. A person is entitled to a view on this site of any kind and you are entitled to wonder whether I am close to the S.E.S. Well I am and I'm not. I am going to write a response to the schools latest statement and you will see what my views of St James and the S.E.S are. I would not send my child there. Then again I don't understand how a parent can be bullied to keep their kids at St James. Paul Moss is not a complex man. He is rather simple. His idea of extacy is hearing that South African slum kids are singing psalms because of S.E.S 'education'.

Justice it is this paranoia (real or false) that is so apparent in you that makes you overstate in general which in my opinion actually hinders rather than boosts the case of everyone else. This is just my view. But I would be interested to see the relevant laws you intend to seek redress through. You are so good at all the official documentation. Bring to the site the relevant legalities that parents and children can get redress through. I'm on the fence. I don't think the fact that I am is a problem. Everyone is entitled to view and I just wanted to state mine that I personally know that you are lying. If you think that it's illegal to reveal that then sue me. Sue the school. Tell them that an unknown person with an unknown relative on the staff has leaked secret information. Why should it be secret to know statistics in this situation. Statistics are most what the majority of people want. If only five persons have withdrawn there children it is better to know this than believe a fairytale. It gives people who are against the school or certain aspects of it more incentive to get their points across. Tell me the names of the people we or I or the school have compromised. Who is to say there is any truth in what I'm saying about 'numerous'?

However judging by your tart reaction and by the fact you have not declared that 'numerous' means even 10 let alone 20 parents it would seem that by default if indeed my five parent hypothesis was a guess, it seems it hit the mark. There were no immediate declarations of numerous meaning 10, 20, 30, 40. You were thrown by me. Any sudden declaration now would look meaningless. 5 is a low number. almost virtually negligible. Do you know five parents? You imply this is about the amount you are in contact with when you declared that by default I strengthened your case. By admitting the five. i am not admitting anything. It is not my case. If 5 is true then you should say 5. Or 6 or 7. Not numerous. There is a word for this in the English language. It's called bollocks. I think we should be entitled to know what numerous means. I have compromised nobody. For all you know it could have been 'me' who is lying and giving out the false statistics. Who knows. I could have been tricking you to get a reaction. To find out how many parents there are who have withdrawn. It is very possible I know nothing. Certainly there is nothing you can prove or lay down on me or the school.

It is unusual as a member on this site to actually be accused of being illegal. I just said you lied and I didn't agree with you. I didn't inadvertently threaten to sue you. I don't take you seriously. The schools are in enough shit. A charge of data protection compromise is very low on the list. The only object of my posting has been to challenge your dominance and what seemed to me to be a direct lie. Now is it me or you who is lying. I personally don't care. I'll leave it up to other people to decide if they are interested. This is way down a conversation thread . It is doubtful that everyone is reading this. I have nothing in any of my articles that I would inform the police about or that could stand in a court of law. If you are interested in informing the Police about Zathura and whether you think she or he might be breaking the law I welcome you to a kind smile and a cup of tea and a police ride back home.

You my 'dear' friend in my opinion are a maniac paranoid obsessive. You like you turning the subtleties of this whole situation into a black and white circus. That said I can only speak for myself and one other person 'Free Thinker'. The moderator has expressed some concern not at your content but your methods of hogging the board. I have some closeness to the S.E.S and some distance as I expressed in my original posting. This whole thread is a series of words, of convictions of various kinds. There is shifting meaning in all of my sentiments as they veer from left to right and back and front. I am not a straightforward black and white person. If you are trying to find a centre to me I am afraid that you will be disappointed. I just don't have one. I don't stand for anything in a complete way as you claim to. I am enjoying being able to express this chameleon tendency in myself so succinctly. The truth is I feel I am closer to being a human being at least in the way I am able to express myself and you are closer to being a cardboard cut out. I'd be interested to see how much real guts are beneath the froth. I myself am not claiming to have any guts. I am just not a militant either way in the way you would prefer me to be having yourself so firmly moulded yourself with burning plastic to the placard of legal rights and human abuse and cults etc. I personally feel I have a wider vision than you and a certain superiority of perspective accordingly. This is just personal. These are just personal opinions. There is nothing legal about it.

I'll end by reminding any possible audience that my point is you lied about there being numerous parents withdrawing. There have been 5 out of the schools and 2 from the lists. I gleaned this knowledge through a certain degree of infiltration and spying both from a parent and from a master/mistress who just happens to teach at SJ and be in my family as well. The two sources gave the same information. Why don't you sue the parent. My second point is you over legalise everything. Two points. And I still think I'm right.

One last point is I don't think I'm important, or not to the process of these conversations. I don't think many people are reading what I have to write. I enjoy writing as it's my subplot career, my hobby and enjoy this chance. and it's a good chance to kind of solidify my perspective but I'm under no pretension that I am the one person through whose brilliant succinctness and moral resoluteness the wrongs that were done to me and my friends will be corrected. I find your fervour and tendency to speak for everyone else insulting to my intelligence and to the feelings of other mates who went to St James. I speak for myself completely unlike the flag waving presumption of some. If anyone else wants to chip in it'd be nice because I'd hate for my view of Justice to be the only 'really' negative one around. And it isn't anyway. I think the research is actually good. The contacts and the cult stuff. However I draw the line at barefaced lies. This is just my opinion. I am bound to be offending some of the most sore on this site. And I probably have the support of the more moderate. I think apart from my minimal use of swearing I have offered some good points. I swore slightly to counteract the force of Justice's postings which may not have contained swearwords but contained very apparently distilled arguments of the very worst kind. I just wanted to say I personally don't think it is quite like your rather dangerous and skull and crossbones postings are implying. It is just a view and if you really don't feel threatened then you would not go to lengths to undermine 'me' like I am undermining you by saying I am 'close' to the S.E.S. You must now feel threatened.If you don't then detail the number of parents who have withdrawn. Reveal your illegal statistics or keep it vague! Yet sounding concrete! This is my point. I am trying to undermine you. Blatantly. You piss me off. Everyone even the most anti on this site are close to the S.E.S. This is the problem.

You actually almost sound like an outsider. A stranger who has accidentally found the site and isn't an ex pupil at all but you talk of reconciliation not being an option and this reconciliation is only being offered to ex pupils and it is unlikely an outsider would get in contact with a group of parents. So you must be a pupil but a rather patronizing and presumptive pupil in my opinion. I can't think what you will say to all this. Or anybody else. Maybe you'll reveal a human multisided side. At the moment you look like a robot. A statistic.

Last edited by Zathura on Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Zathura wrote:...For instance 'systematic abuse' (Alban) implies a reality that I never saw. Nowhere near it...

Unfortunately, just because you never saw it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Judging by your postings you are from a different generation than a few of us "guinea pigs" and thus it is likely that the law had been passed that prevented teachers stiking pupils by the time you were at the schools.

I stand by my words - in the late 70's hardly a day went by when one of the 80 or so pupils was not subject to a violent physical outburst. That is systematic.

It is unlikely you would have heard of this abuse as you say yourself, you were born into the SES (big time by the sounds of it)....and we all know what the SES's reaction is to anything they don't like to hear!

For Christs sake take some time out, move on from your dislike of Justice's posts.... your opinion is welcome here as much as anyones is... but please cut the verbal diarrhoea - try bullet points if you find short sentences difficult.